The language of the NACS

Moderator: SCMurphy

The language of the NACS

Postby SCMurphy » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:57 am

No I'm not declaring English or German as our official language. I'm starting a list of terms, that I hope you all add to, that we are going to be using as we discuss the plants. Since the group is focused on the genus Cryptocoryne with a bit of overlap with Lagenandra I think we should stick to labeling plants C. wendtii or L. nairii in discussions. We don't need to extend the Genus name every time. The official list will be maintained in a seperate closed thread, discussion for terms to include should go here.

Also if a plant has a culture number I think we can use this as the 'name' of the plant. ***This discussion seems anal, yes I know, but we are going to be at a point where we need this faster than you know.*** Jan has a whole numbering scheme that he uses to track plants. He told me I should come up with one of my own. I haven't yet. Any suggestions while I work up my database?

hort.: You can see this on my list of plants from the ECS, this means that the plants don't have locality data.

xhort: I think we should use this for plants that we cannot positively ID yet that have no locality data.

Jan likes to include the name of the person who named the plant in his lists. It confuses me at the moment but I thnk I can get used to it when listing plants.

To be continued:
"したくさ" Sean

Aquascape? I'm a crypt farmer.

If you've got bait, I've got wasabi!

That IS an aquascape, it's titled THE VACANT LOT.
User avatar
SCMurphy
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby DelawareJim » Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:47 am

We should, of course, stick to nomenclature rules as far as genus, species, subspecies, variety, and cultivar are concerned. A cultivar would be listed as C. wendtii 'Mi Oya', and a variety would be C. crispatula var. Balansae, or C. wendtii var. Brown.

Our own culture code is tricky though. What information do we want to know? Plant name obviously. Who we got it from? When we got it? Who it originally came from after it's been passed around for a while? What set up it came from if we have the same plant in different gowing set ups?

Just thinking out loud here..... I can see giving each member a member number and then incorporating that into the code to document the source. The year obtained might be helpful. The tank number would help.

A label with C. crispatula var. Balansae/0005/2005/3 could tell me that I got the plant from Aaron Talbot in 2005 from his emersed, peat/laterite tank.

If any of us get to travel to Cryptland, we would obviously need collection location, date, and collection/sample number. But that's for another time.

Cheers.
Jim
User avatar
DelawareJim
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:05 am
Location: Southeastern PA

Re: The language of the NACS

Postby Kai Witte » Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:23 pm

Hello Sean,

I think we should stick to labeling plants C. wendtii or L. nairii in discussions. We don't need to extend the Genus name every time.

I'm going to take the liberty and just use the species name (followed by a locality or collection code if applicable) in informal discussions when it is clear which genus were speaking of (i.e. crypts by default in this subforum). I don't see the point to waste time with typing the obvious and I also won't be going to call you Mr./Dr./chairman Sean C. Murphy unless you insist... ;) :P

Also if a plant has a culture number I think we can use this as the 'name' of the plant. ***This discussion seems anal, yes I know, but we are going to be at a point where we need this faster than you know.*** Jan has a whole numbering scheme that he uses to track plants. He told me I should come up with one of my own. I haven't yet. Any suggestions while I work up my database?

I'm voting for merely giving chronological numbers as personal accession/collecting code. That's a time-proven biological tradition. While it's not universally followed I haven't come across a more convincing labeling approach during some 25 years of botanical/zoological collecting and herbarium/museum work. Obviously, more ideosyncratic approaches can work, too, but they quickly tend to get tedious without much added benefit...

hort.: You can see this on my list of plants from the ECS, this means that the plants don't have locality data.

I'm in favor of spelling (most) things out: Using "aquarium strain" is probably easier to grasp than a botanical idiom.

xhort: I think we should use this for plants that we cannot positively ID yet that have no locality data.

Just use "sp." - "x" usually indicates a hybrid.

Jan likes to include the name of the person who named the plant in his lists. It confuses me at the moment but I thnk I can get used to it when listing plants.

Giving the author's name(s) is not mandatory (actually, there are good arguments that this tradition raises more problems than it solves but that's another discussion). It's certainly a good idea to make a list available complete with authors as well as full references to the original descriptions (and new combinations where applicable). I see no point in adding this info when using species names more informally or when comunicating with neophytes since these universally get confused with the actual name/etc. IMHO, it's much more important that the locality information and/or the original collecting code doesn't get lost than trying to be too "botanically correct"... :)
Best wishes,
Kai
Kai Witte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:22 pm

Postby Kai Witte » Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:37 pm

Hello Jim,

Our own culture code is tricky though. What information do we want to know? Plant name obviously. Who we got it from? When we got it? Who it originally came from after it's been passed around for a while? What set up it came from if we have the same plant in different gowing set ups?

Don't try to find a master code which will fit all your needs - even if you manage to find a suitable one, you can be dead sure that you'll want to incorporate other info later on... ;)

Keep it simple: numbers as accession code, all other pertinent info added as notes into your collection book *and* into an (optional) electronic database.

Just thinking out loud here..... I can see giving each member a member number and then incorporating that into the code to document the source. The year obtained might be helpful. The tank number would help.

A label with C. crispatula var. Balansae/0005/2005/3 could tell me that I got the plant from Aaron Talbot in 2005 from his emersed, peat/laterite tank.

Yeah, but tanks change and you'll end up with a long list of people to code (not just NACS members!). Why make it cryptic so that only a few insiders can understand it? You don't usually need these additional data when handling plants in your collection. If you forgot and need to know, just take the number and check back with the original entry in your accession book...
Best wishes,
Kai
Kai Witte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:22 pm

Postby SCMurphy » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:07 pm

I insist on Sean unless you have a colorful name you wish to call me in which case please expect a similarly colorful name to be concurrently applied to your person. :wink:

Kai, I didn't invent the hort. I got it from Jan so I don't consider it obscure. It's just a reference to say that there is no collection locality data i.e. it came from a pet store or wholesaler etc. I do see your point about the x though.

OK instead of xhort, hort sp. I can live with that.

I think there can be diferences between lists, which is where the authors names came into play, and conversation/correspondence, which is where the shortened Genus could be considered. There is some overlap of species names between the Crypts and the Lags which is why I was hoping to reduce the Genus to the capital letter at least at the start of a post.

I'm not shooting for botanically correct, I'm shooting for accurate and easy.
"したくさ" Sean

Aquascape? I'm a crypt farmer.

If you've got bait, I've got wasabi!

That IS an aquascape, it's titled THE VACANT LOT.
User avatar
SCMurphy
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby Kai Witte » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:16 pm

Here's an example what data I'm currently sending along with plants to other enthusiasts; this is still under development, so please feel free to comment:

C. minima "Perak: Bukit Merah (NJM 04-29)"
Collected by Niels Jacobsen in 2004; Malay Peninsula, Perak: Bukit Merah/Berah (= Batu 3 1/2).
[optional notes]
Provenance: *yourself* <- Witte (KEW 5114) <- Jacobsen (NJM 04-29).


> C. minima "Perak: Bukit Merah (NJM 04-29)"
A relatively short name to identify a population/strain/clone: name "locality (code)"

> Collected by Niels Jacobsen in 2004; Malay Peninsula, Perak: Bukit Merah/Berah (= Batu 3 1/2).
More details on the original collector, date & locality. Note that prefer to use biogeographically relevant data (i. e. Malay Peninsula rather than Malaysia); adding the river basin would be a plus but I haven't had time to research them for all my crypts...

> [optional notes]
Any additional notes/info deemed of major interest; I guess I should also add a few ecological tidbits here (if available)?

> Provenance: *yourself* <- Witte (KEW 5114) <- Jacobsen (NJM 04-29).
Complete list of people who collected/propagated this specific lineage (e. g. Niels collected it, I received it directly from him, and am now passing it on...) - this can get quite long but helps to trace back errors; persons who received a shipment and forwarded the collected plants (without propagating them) should be placed in [brackets].


Any suggestions?
Best wishes,
Kai
Kai Witte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:22 pm

Postby Kai Witte » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:10 pm

Hello Sean,

I didn't invent the hort. I got it from Jan so I don't consider it obscure.

Sure, I know it - it's one of the many abbreviations like auct. = auctores. I consider these leftovers from times when academic folks where fluent in Latin and not much interested in communicating their research results with people without academic merits... Keep also in mind that "horticulture" or similar words are not in use in most living languages.

It's a judgement call: You'll always have to use a certain amount of specialised jargon and abbreviations (like "sp. aff." or "cf.") when utilising scientific names but other stumbling stones which are not formally fixed could be easily avoided IMHO.

OK instead of xhort, hort sp. I can live with that.

Cryptocoryne sp. hort. would be the correct order. However, I bet you'll start seeing "Cryptocoryne hort" being offered on ebay after a while... ;)

I think there can be diferences between lists, which is where the authors names came into play,

Sure, if anyone likes Legalese, have a look here. :)
http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/c ... ntents.htm

There is some overlap of species names between the Crypts and the Lags which is why I was hoping to reduce the Genus to the capital letter at least at the start of a post.

Yes, there's considerable overlap. It should be (made) clear which genus is meant. I don't expect that many postings on Lagenandra although these are also nice plants...
Best wishes,
Kai
Kai Witte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:22 pm

Postby DelawareJim » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:41 pm

Kai;

Thanks for the input. Your comments on the codes and labeling system makes sense. Keeping the pertinent data in a personal collection book hadn't occured to me when I was posting.

Unfortunately for me, the extent of the botanical labeling we did in college was not as detailed. Also when I worked in college conducting plant breeding, I worked with several greenhouses of the same plant that were simply identified by the greenhouse number and the plant number (2/1423- greenhouse 2, plant number 1423). Offspring were simply identified as 2/1423 x 2/0015, with the first plant the pollenator and the second the recipient.

Cheers.
Jim
User avatar
DelawareJim
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:05 am
Location: Southeastern PA

Postby SCMurphy » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:16 pm

Ok I'm going to set up my reference numbers like this:

SCM-ECS-0001
SCM-HORT-0001

Forgive the 0's I like to be optimistic.

Plants that are unverified material without collection data will be given the basic treatment:
C. wendtii 'Tropica' h? eBay 2007 extra info to follow here

Plants that are easy to identify without a flower without data:
C. parva h eBay 2007 extra info to follow here

Plants with data:
C. wendtii 'Tropica' KEW ECS 2006 extra info to follow here

Basically: plant (full botanical name) source year
"したくさ" Sean

Aquascape? I'm a crypt farmer.

If you've got bait, I've got wasabi!

That IS an aquascape, it's titled THE VACANT LOT.
User avatar
SCMurphy
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Maryland


Return to North American Cryptocoryne Society

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron